Let's try to keep our conspiracy theories at least "sorta kinda" rational, eh?

[Lance Payette]

Years ago, a CT lurker at the Ed Forum privately encouraged my efforts to tweak characters like DiEugenio. He said he thought Newman was the last great CT hope “if he can ever bring it all to Dealey Plaza, which I doubt he can.” The two big obstacles for CTers are (1) Oswald the actual man, not the fictional Most Interesting Man in the World of most conspiracy theories, and (2) Dealey Plaza, meaning the actual events that occurred and must be plausibly dealt with.

This would be my humble, off-the-top-of-my-head guide to rational conspiracy theorizing. (I'm stuck at home with a ruptured Achilles and thus have lots of time for this sort of stuff, just in case you were wondering.)

1. As far as Oswald is concerned, the theory has to be basically the LN narrative. An Oswald who wasn’t the sixth-floor gunman is impossible, factually and logically.

2. The theory has to deal with who Oswald actually was – a somewhat angry and bitter, somewhat violent, idealistic, Marxist (by his rudimentary understanding), pro-Castro character with dreams of being taken seriously and fantasies of achieving a place in history. A theory that has to reinvent Oswald (false defector, faux Marxist, right-wing patriot, JVB's boyfriend, Most Interesting Man in the World, blah blah blah) is going nowhere.

3. Real-world conspiracies are as tight and compartmentalized as the conspirators can make them. This was a Presidential assassination – the highest stakes and greatest risks imaginable for the conspirators. A theory that is elaborate and involves numerous participants, who often stumble over their own feet like the Three Stooges and leave all sorts of clues, is impossible.

4. No real-world conspiracy, and certainly not a Presidential one, includes as part of the plan “all the incredibly risky things we’ll do after the event to cover our tracks and create a false narrative.” A theory that involves an elaborate, multi-faceted cover-up is impossible.

5. A conspiracy that has Oswald as a knowing participant is the most plausible. For Oswald to be a knowing participant, it either had to be a pro-Castro conspiracy or Oswald had to be duped into believing it was.

6. A conspiracy that has Oswald as the lone gunman is the most plausible. If there was another shooter and the intent was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, the shooter had to be in a location where the trajectory would be plausibly attributable to Oswald, the timing of the shots could be carefully coordinated, and the ammunition was not obviously from a different rifle.

7. If the intent was not to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, then one or more other shooters could be anywhere, using any variety of ammunition, but the theory must still be realistic in terms of numbers 1-5 above.

8. Each aspect and step of the conspiracy must at least minimally satisfy the “What sense would that have made?” test. If the proponent can’t convincingly articulate what sense each aspect and step would have made, the theory is going nowhere. If some important aspect or step would clearly have made no sense, adios to the theory.

9. Insisting you’ve shown that some aspect of the LN narrative is “impossible,” or that Oswald “would never have been convicted in a criminal trial,” is not a conspiracy theory.

Let’s be honest: 95% of the conspiracy theories, including the most popular, are preposterous, borderline insane, literally Three Stooges stuff. This is why I had at least some enthusiasm for the Orr/Schnapf theory – the Mafia had the means, the best of all possible motives (hatred and money), and the theory has the gunmen being Oswald and a single pro on the roof of the County Records Building. Or perhaps Larry Hancock’s theory, which seems to be pretty modest in scope, anti-Castro oriented, and might be plausible if he could tie up the loose ends. (One must, however, always keep in mind what Gerry Patrick Hemming said: "I know for a fact there were plans to assassinate JFK, but maybe Oswald just beat them to it.")

I happen to think the LN narrative, warts and all, is the most plausible, realistic and evidence-based. But a conspiracy meeting the above criteria is not impossible, and I’m willing to listen. CTers do themselves a disfavor by focusing on theories that are simply impossible from every angle.

They only hired this guy because Oswald wasn’t available …

[Tom Graves]

The [correct JFKA] theory has to deal with who Oswald actually was – a somewhat angry and bitter, somewhat violent, idealistic, Marxist (by his rudimentary understanding), pro-Castro character with dreams of being taken seriously and fantasies of achieving a place in history. A theory that has to reinvent Oswald (false defector, faux Marxist, right-wing patriot, JVB's boyfriend, Most Interesting Man in the World, blah blah blah) is going nowhere.

Dear Lance,

What about an "I Led Three Lives"-loving Oswald who thought he was being sent to Moscow on a mission in which he would serve as a "dangle" in a regular mole hunt for "Popov's U-2 Mole," but was actually sent there by the mole, himself (who happened to be James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior) to protect said mole from being uncovered, to destroy the Soviet Russia Division, and to drive Angleton nuts?

Could Oswald's being jacked around by a KGB-controlled CIA and the KGB-proper have angered the psychologically damaged, self-described Marxist so much as to contribute to his reasons for assassinating JFK?

-- Tom

[Sean Kneringer]

But where would Jake Maxwell post??

[Tom Graves]

But where would Jake Maxwell post??

RT, Alex Jones, or the Ed Forum!!!

[Tom Graves]

7. If the intent was not to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, then one or more other shooters could be anywhere, using any variety of ammunition, but the theory must still be realistic in terms of numbers 1-5 above.

Dear Lance,

Do you mean the conspirators may have not only encouraged / provoked / duped Oswald into shooting at JFK, but tried to make it look as though at least one other pro-Castro sniper had shot at him, too?

Why not keep it simple and just encourage / provoke / dupe former Marine sharpshooter Oswald to do it all by him widdle pro-Castro self?

Were they afraid he would unintentionally miss and rat them out?

-- Tom

[Dan O'meara]

Years ago, a CT lurker at the Ed Forum privately encouraged my efforts to tweak characters like DiEugenio. He said he thought Newman was the last great CT hope “if he can ever bring it all to Dealey Plaza, which I doubt he can.” The two big obstacles for CTers are (1) Oswald the actual man, not the fictional Most Interesting Man in the World of most conspiracy theories, and (2) Dealey Plaza, meaning the actual events that occurred and must be plausibly dealt with.

This would be my humble, off-the-top-of-my-head guide to rational conspiracy theorizing. (I'm stuck at home with a ruptured Achilles and thus have lots of time for this sort of stuff, just in case you were wondering.)

1. As far as Oswald is concerned, the theory has to be basically the LN narrative. An Oswald who wasn’t the sixth-floor gunman is impossible, factually and logically.

2. The theory has to deal with who Oswald actually was – a somewhat angry and bitter, somewhat violent, idealistic, Marxist (by his rudimentary understanding), pro-Castro character with dreams of being taken seriously and fantasies of achieving a place in history. A theory that has to reinvent Oswald (false defector, faux Marxist, right-wing patriot, JVB's boyfriend, Most Interesting Man in the World, blah blah blah) is going nowhere.

3. Real-world conspiracies are as tight and compartmentalized as the conspirators can make them. This was a Presidential assassination – the highest stakes and greatest risks imaginable for the conspirators. A theory that is elaborate and involves numerous participants, who often stumble over their own feet like the Three Stooges and leave all sorts of clues, is impossible.

4. No real-world conspiracy, and certainly not a Presidential one, includes as part of the plan “all the incredibly risky things we’ll do after the event to cover our tracks and create a false narrative.” A theory that involves an elaborate, multi-faceted cover-up is impossible.

5. A conspiracy that has Oswald as a knowing participant is the most plausible. For Oswald to be a knowing participant, it either had to be a pro-Castro conspiracy or Oswald had to be duped into believing it was.

6. A conspiracy that has Oswald as the lone gunman is the most plausible. If there was another shooter and the intent was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, the shooter had to be in a location where the trajectory would be plausibly attributable to Oswald, the timing of the shots could be carefully coordinated, and the ammunition was not obviously from a different rifle.

7. If the intent was not to frame Oswald as the lone gunman, then one or more other shooters could be anywhere, using any variety of ammunition, but the theory must still be realistic in terms of numbers 1-5 above.

8. Each aspect and step of the conspiracy must at least minimally satisfy the “What sense would that have made?” test. If the proponent can’t convincingly articulate what sense each aspect and step would have made, the theory is going nowhere. If some important aspect or step would clearly have made no sense, adios to the theory.

9. Insisting you’ve shown that some aspect of the LN narrative is “impossible,” or that Oswald “would never have been convicted in a criminal trial,” is not a conspiracy theory.

Let’s be honest: 95% of the conspiracy theories, including the most popular, are preposterous, borderline insane, literally Three Stooges stuff. This is why I had at least some enthusiasm for the Orr/Schnapf theory – the Mafia had the means, the best of all possible motives (hatred and money), and the theory has the gunmen being Oswald and a single pro on the roof of the County Records Building. Or perhaps Larry Hancock’s theory, which seems to be pretty modest in scope, anti-Castro oriented, and might be plausible if he could tie up the loose ends. (One must, however, always keep in mind what Gerry Patrick Hemming said: "I know for a fact there were plans to assassinate JFK, but maybe Oswald just beat them to it.")

I happen to think the LN narrative, warts and all, is the most plausible, realistic and evidence-based. But a conspiracy meeting the above criteria is not impossible, and I’m willing to listen. CTers do themselves a disfavor by focusing on theories that are simply impossible from every angle.

They only hired this guy because Oswald wasn’t available …

"...I’m willing to listen..."

 
You may be deluded but at least you're funny.

[Michael T. Griffith]

1. As far as Oswald is concerned, the theory has to be basically the LN narrative. An Oswald who wasn’t the sixth-floor gunman is impossible, factually and logically.

This is another one of your dogmatic uninformed and illogical claims. Take a guess who said this:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."

The person who said this was none other than the Chief of Police of the Dallas Police Department in 1963, Jesse Curry (https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcurryJ.htm).

A few other facts:

-- We now know that NAA testing of the paraffin cast of Oswald's right cheek found no traces of nitrates, and that in control testing NAA never failed to detect nitrates in paraffin casts of other men who had fired rifles. The results of the NAA testing on Oswald's paraffin cast were suppressed for many years, for obvious reasons.

-- Voice stress analysis (VSA) of Oswald's declarations of innocence while in police custody indicate he was telling the truth. VSA polygraphs are more effective than traditional polygraphs because they can be administered without the person's knowledge.

-- TSBD eyewitness testimony clearly puts Oswald on the first and second floor during the shooting, a fact confirmed by the Martha Jo Stroud memo. No wonder the WC suppressed the memo. Barry Ernest found the memo in the National Archives in 1999.

WC staffers deliberately changed Vicki Adams' timeline. In her original FBI interview, she said she left the fourth floor no more than 30 seconds after the shooting, but the WC changed "15 to 30 seconds" to 1 minute.

Adams said she arrived on the first floor within 1 minute of the shooting. The WC changed that to several minutes.

The Stroud memo--which, again, the WC suppressed--documents that Vicki Adams' supervisor, Dorothy Garner, reported that she saw Adams go down the stairs before she saw Officer Baker and Roy Truly come up the stairs, blowing to pieces the WC's version of Oswald's movements and proving that Oswald did not go down the stairs after the shooting.

BTW, when Barry Ernest located and interviewed Dorothy Garner, she confirmed the Stroud memo. She told Ernest that she was at the window with Vicki Adams, that Adams left the window immediately, that she followed Adams out of the office and to a point where she could see her going down the stairs, and during that whole time she never saw Oswald.

This explains why WC counsel David Belin, who was in charge of establishing Oswald's movements inside the building, refused to interview Adams' co-worker Sandra Styles, even after (or because) Adams told Belin that Styles would corroborate her account. Thus, it is not hard to understand why Belin buried the Stroud memo. Since he would not interview Styles for fear she would corroborate Adams' account, he wasn't about to let anyone know that Adams' supervisor had confirmed Adams' account.

[Royell Storing]

  Keep conspiracy theories "rational"?  What about the SBT? Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is Impossible". And what about LN's now embracing the shooter inside the sniper's nest firing shot #1 while standing straight up and firing almost straight down through a 3/4 CLOSED window? Pot meet kettle.